If Charles becomes King then Camilla has to be Queen; anything else is stupid and illogical. The question of the register office marriage is irrelevant. The real debate is whether Charles should become King in the first place. Even for one who was an admirer of Princess Diana, who still shivers at the thought of Camilla being so close to the Royal Family and - while an admirer of Prince Charles in many ways - believes the Prince has acted badly in his private life for many years, the whole issue of the monarchy and where it fits in our society has become a bit of a bore. Who really cares? Let him be King and her Queen and so what? The whole concept of the Royal Family - leaving aside their value as a tourist attraction - is from a bygone age.
Keith Downer, London Oh, how all this posturing over "should she, shouldn`t she" annoys me. Forget tradition and those dressed-up rules. Please stop dancing round the issue of the civil ceremony and apply some basic common decency to this issue. The man married his long-term mistress; they are obviously happy together and I and many other British subjects who have done the same thing do not see anything strange about this. Charles should give up his birth right to be crowned and totter off into early retirement. Problem solved. And if he truly loves this wife "above all things", he will do just that. Susan Collie, Montpellier, France
Register office weddings are acceptable for everyone else in today's society and it should be so for them. At least their love for one another has been enduring and they are comfortable together. Camilla already behaves like a Queen - she displays understanding, and does not court media attention for the wrong reasons. Name and address withheld
"The wife of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England surely has to have been married in the Church of England?” Why must the wife of the Supreme Governor of the Church have been married in Church if it is not necessary for the Supreme Governor of the Church to have been married in Church? Christ laid down no differential rules for men and women. This is not logical nor theologically sound. If the non-religious wedding is valid at all it is valid for both and if not, and if it excludes anyone from the Anglican communion, it must exclude both. Lynn Thomson, Aylesbury
Not only would Camilla be unsuitable for Queen, but Charles is similarly unsuitable as King. Through their actions, they lack dignity and class. The Queen, whatever her faults, has those characteristics and can be respected. Prince William by his actions and character has class and dignity, as does his girlfriend. That is what a current monarch of Britain needs. Anna Ross, Vancouver, Canada
I don't believe that Millie should be queen and I dare say that she probably doesn't want the role and would agree with me anyway. I think she is a top lady and is doing a great job in a dignified way. Peter Reedman, Sydney, Australia
The Preface to the 39 Articles of the Church of England describes the monarch as "being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and ... Supreme Governor of the Church of England". The monarch must be in communion with the Church of England (ie, a full, confirmed member) and, in his or her coronation oath, the monarch promises to maintain the Church." If Camilla is not a confirmed member of the Church of England, she can't be crowned Queen consort. She and Charles couldn't be married in the Church as they are divorced, and as Defender of the Faith Charles must adhere to all the C of E's rules. She can't become Queen. It's nothing to do with her personally. She doesn't qualify. She and Charles shouldn't take it as a personal insult. Gillian Keir, St Albert, Canada
As a former member of the Church of England and now an active member of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles, I trust that Lord Hope, and others of like mind, will change their traditionalist position and seek a way for Prince Charles to take the throne with the Duchess of Cornwall as his Queen Consort. Perhaps a renewal of marriage vows, rather than a blessing, in a church ceremony prior to the coronation could be the vehicle. Then, the Prince and his wife could both be anointed and crowned as King and Queen Consort at their coronation and Charles take up his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. If the Church cannot bring itself to do this, then I suggest that Parliament should move to disestablish it. Alan Hopkinson, Santa Barbara, California
I disagree with Lord Hope. He is too legalistic in his reasoning. It is up to the Prince of Wales to gauge public opinion when he succeeds his mother. The Duchess is no saint, but neither was Diana. Bill McGregor, Ballarat, Australia
Right now it would probably be a public relations disaster. However, if the Queen is as long lived as her mother in another 20 years people might not mind so much. After all, Diana has been dead for nearly ten years. In 20 or so more years no one will really care. Deborah Atwell, Louisville, Kentucky
Really - what a question! An aging priest fulminates against change and modernity and two ought-to-know-better adults obsess about their status. The Prince really is an honourable man and I wish him and his new wife well. But the monarchy and the Church of England both have entered their end-of-life phase. Paris is burning and Malawi is starving. Can't Lord Hope of Thornes worry about something more important than who should be called Queen? Jayne Barnard, Lanexa, Virginia
Of course Camilla should be Queen. She's a fine consort. Although why anyone cares in this day and age is beyond me. Yet here I am blathering on about it. Emily Burke, San Juan Capistrano, California
If she becomes Queen, the public may decide that the monarchy has lost its relevance anyway. It could sway public opinion into doing away about the monarchy - so may be that will be the best possible outcome. Camilla is a tolerable person, but will always invite comparisons to Diana; not to mention doubts about the way in which that marriage ended. Howard Grattan, Johannesburg, South Africa
